Filed 2/28/18 In re Jade N. CA1/4
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FOUR


In re JADE N., A Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

SOLANO COUNTY HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
Jackie H.,
Defendant and Appellant.




A152815

(Solano County Super. Ct.
No. J42883)



OPINION
Jackie H. (mother) appeals from an October 2017 juvenile court order terminating her parental rights with respect to her daughter, Jade N. (born April 2014), at a permanency planning hearing held pursuant to section 366.26 of the Welfare and Institutions Code . We appointed counsel to represent mother on appeal. On January 3, 2018, counsel filed an opening brief pursuant to In re Phoenix H. (2009) 47 Cal.4th 835 and In re Sade C. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 952, finding no arguable issues. By accompanying declaration, counsel reported that she had advised mother that a “No Issues Statement” would be filed and provided her with a copy of the appellate record. On January 4, 2018, we notified mother that a “No Issues Statement” was filed by her attorney, and we subsequently received several written responses from mother.
An appealed-from judgment or order is presumed correct. (Conservatorship of Ben C. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 529, 544, fn. 8.) Thus, it is an appellant’s burden to raise claims of reversible error or other defect and to present argument and authority on each point made. If an appellant fails to do so, the appeal may be dismissed. (In re Sade C., supra, 13 Cal.4th at p. 994.)
At a permanency planning hearing, the juvenile court’s focus shifts to the needs of the child for permanency and stability. (In re Marilyn H. (1993) 5 Cal.4th 295, 309.) In particular, if, as in this case, the child is deemed likely to be adopted, the juvenile court must terminate parental rights unless the parent proves there is a compelling reason for finding that such termination would be detrimental to the child under certain statutorily delineated circumstances. (§ 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(B).)
Here, mother does not present any direct challenge to the juvenile court’s adoptability finding or termination order. Rather, she offers a copy of an April 2014 safety plan, presumably in support of an argument she made throughout the proceedings below that the child welfare department should never have gotten involved in this matter in the first place, because she had left the minor with a trusted friend while drinking. The time for contesting the jurisdictional bases for these proceedings, however, is long since passed and thus this material has no relevance to the current appeal. (See In re T.G. (2010) 188 Cal.App.4th 687, 692; In re Jennifer V. (1988) 197 Cal.App.3d 1206, 1209.)
Mother has also provided us with documentation indicating that she has been successfully participating in residential substance abuse treatment and therapy for the past four months. Mother’s reports are excellent and we applaud her for her continued efforts and progress. Indeed, we fervently hope that mother continues with the difficult process of transforming her life. Unfortunately, the materials she offers do nothing to undermine the juvenile court’s termination order, as they relate largely to events taking place after the October 2017 permanency planning hearing. We therefore conclude that mother has made no showing that an arguable issue does, in fact, exist that would merit further briefing with respect to the juvenile court order that she currently challenges on appeal. Under such circumstances, dismissal is appropriate. (See In re Phoenix H., supra, 47 Cal.4th at pp. 844, 846.)
DISPOSITION
Because no claim of error or other defect has been raised in this matter, the appeal filed in A152815 is dismissed as abandoned. (In re Phoenix H., supra, 47 Cal.4th at pp. 844-846; In re Sade C., supra, 13 Cal.4th at p. 994.)

 




_________________________
REARDON, ACTING P. J.


We concur:


_________________________
STREETER, J.


_________________________
SCHULMAN, J.*






















*Judge of the Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.

A152815 In re Jade N.